Does the Prompt-based Large Language Model Recognize Students' Demographics and Introduce Bias in Essay Scoring?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21330v1
• Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 05:36:28 GMT
• Title: Does the Prompt-based Large Language Model Recognize Students' Demographics and Introduce Bias in Essay Scoring?
• Authors: Kaixun Yang, Mladen Raković, Dragan Gašević, Guanliang Chen,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in Automated Essay Scoring (AES)<n>This study explores the relationship between the model's predictive power of students' demographic attributes based on their written works and its predictive bias in the scoring task in the prompt-based paradigm.
• Score: 3.7498611358320733
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) due to their ability to capture semantic meaning. Traditional fine-tuning approaches required technical expertise, limiting accessibility for educators with limited technical backgrounds. However, prompt-based tools like ChatGPT have made AES more accessible, enabling educators to obtain machine-generated scores using natural-language prompts (i.e., the prompt-based paradigm). Despite advancements, prior studies have shown bias in fine-tuned LLMs, particularly against disadvantaged groups. It remains unclear whether such biases persist or are amplified in the prompt-based paradigm with cutting-edge tools. Since such biases are believed to stem from the demographic information embedded in pre-trained models (i.e., the ability of LLMs' text embeddings to predict demographic attributes), this study explores the relationship between the model's predictive power of students' demographic attributes based on their written works and its predictive bias in the scoring task in the prompt-based paradigm. Using a publicly available dataset of over 25,000 students' argumentative essays, we designed prompts to elicit demographic inferences (i.e., gender, first-language background) from GPT-4o and assessed fairness in automated scoring. Then we conducted multivariate regression analysis to explore the impact of the model's ability to predict demographics on its scoring outcomes. Our findings revealed that (i) prompt-based LLMs can somewhat infer students' demographics, particularly their first-language backgrounds, from their essays; (ii) scoring biases are more pronounced when the LLM correctly predicts students' first-language background than when it does not; and (iii) scoring error for non-native English speakers increases when the LLM correctly identifies them as non-native.

Related papers

• Machine-assisted writing evaluation: Exploring pre-trained language models in analyzing argumentative moves [28.01557438111706]
  The study investigates the efficacy of pre-trained language models (PLMs) in analyzing argumentative moves in a longitudinal learner corpus.<n>A longitudinal corpus of 1643 argumentative texts from 235 English learners in China is collected and annotated into six move types.<n>The results indicate a robust reliability of PLMs in analyzing argumentative moves, with an overall F1 score of 0.743, surpassing existing models in the field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T02:21:12Z)
• Actions Speak Louder than Words: Agent Decisions Reveal Implicit Biases in Language Models [10.565316815513235]
  Large language models (LLMs) may still exhibit implicit biases when simulating human behavior. We show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant sociodemographic disparities in nearly all simulations. When comparing our findings to real-world disparities reported in empirical studies, we find that the biases we uncovered are directionally aligned but markedly amplified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T05:21:31Z)
• A Bayesian Approach to Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Authorship Attribution [57.309390098903]
  Authorship attribution aims to identify the origin or author of a document. Large Language Models (LLMs) with their deep reasoning capabilities and ability to maintain long-range textual associations offer a promising alternative. Our results on the IMDb and blog datasets show an impressive 85% accuracy in one-shot authorship classification across ten authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T04:14:23Z)
• Aggregation Artifacts in Subjective Tasks Collapse Large Language Models' Posteriors [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs) In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T17:16:00Z)
• One Language, Many Gaps: Evaluating Dialect Fairness and Robustness of Large Language Models in Reasoning Tasks [68.33068005789116]
  We present the first study aimed at objectively assessing the fairness and robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in handling dialects in canonical reasoning tasks. We hire AAVE speakers, including experts with computer science backgrounds, to rewrite seven popular benchmarks, such as HumanEval and GSM8K. Our findings reveal that textbfalmost all of these widely used models show significant brittleness and unfairness to queries in AAVE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T18:44:23Z)
• BEADs: Bias Evaluation Across Domains [9.19312529999677]
  Bias Evaluations Across Domains BEADs dataset is designed to support a wide array of NLP tasks.<n>A key focus of this paper is the gold label dataset that is annotated by GPT4 for scalabilty.<n>Our findings indicate that BEADs effectively identifies numerous biases when fine-tuned on this dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T16:18:30Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Sociodemographic Prompting is Not Yet an Effective Approach for Simulating Subjective Judgments with LLMs [13.744746481528711]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to simulate human responses across diverse contexts.<n>We evaluate nine popular LLMs on their ability to understand demographic differences in two subjective judgment tasks: politeness and offensiveness.<n>We find that in zero-shot settings, most models' predictions for both tasks align more closely with labels from White participants than those from Asian or Black participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:24Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Fairness-guided Few-shot Prompting for Large Language Models [93.05624064699965]
  In-context learning can suffer from high instability due to variations in training examples, example order, and prompt formats. We introduce a metric to evaluate the predictive bias of a fixed prompt against labels or a given attributes. We propose a novel search strategy based on the greedy search to identify the near-optimal prompt for improving the performance of in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T12:28:25Z)
• Toward Fairness in Text Generation via Mutual Information Minimization based on Importance Sampling [23.317845744611375]
  We propose to minimize the mutual information between the semantics in the generated text sentences and their demographic polarity. In this way, the mentioning of a demographic group is encouraged to be independent from how it is described in the generated text. We also propose a distillation mechanism that preserves the language modeling ability of the PLMs after debiasing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-25T18:29:02Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.